Apparently, Iron Man is the second coming. Interested in seeing Jesus once again, I went to see the flick with Cas.
The truth it, it's not a bad film, but that's about it. A brief run down of the plot will give you billionaire playboy genius Tony Stark is kidnapped in Afghanistan, takes shrapnel in his heart, and then, rigged up to a car battery, does his impression of Ned Kelly, before returning to America to announce that weapons manufacturing is bad, Stark Enterprises will stop this, and then proceeds to create an Iron Man suit to go and beat up bad guys. The film hints, for a moment, at a dialogue between America's relationship with weapons makers and supplying the world, but it's a hint made by the subject matter, and not the film, and any dialogue that could be established is dropped for cardboard villains and a man in a red and gold suit smacking them around. Which is fine, of course; but the moment someone tells you that this film has subtext, you're to beat them pipe. And outside that kind of statement, Iron Man does very little wrong: Downey is well cast as Tony Stark, Jeff Bridges does his best with the role of the villain that lacks reasoning--why after thirty years decide to kill Stark?--and Gwyneth Paltrow is in a role that seems to be beneath her, an admittance I find strange, given that I've never been a fan of her. Oh, and there's another insufferable cameo by Stan Lee, which I'd really just wish they'd stop doing.
So, what's the problem, then?
It's passion.
There's no passion in this film. There's nothing about it that says, "Iron Man had to be made." There's no love, no defiance, no need, which is something that I found with Batman Begins, and almost every other superhero film I've seen--in fact, perhaps every one, but I'm sure there's been one or two when I haven't thought that. For some of those films, however, what does it matter? No passion in X-Men 3? Good: it was shit from beginning to end. No passion in the Punisher? Heh. Yeah, could anyone make sense of that? But Iron Man, with its good actors and its sometimes interesting director? Why are they here. Why aren't they making a film that they feel something about, which they are engaged with, and which will translate, then, across the screen and to a viewing pleasure for me? Perhaps it's an odd complaint to make, but I don't want to see Downey as Tony Stark, or Jon Favreau directing such a film. Okay, granted, only Made is a difference for him, and it's not that much of a change, given that he apparently directed Zathura: A Space Adventure, but still, the man can make a decent film, and shows some ability, and this is my point. The script was mostly rubbish in terms of dialogue and plot, but so many are--but there's Bridges, doing his best while smoking a cigar, and all I can think is, 'Why are you here, man? You're too good for this."
I ask this, because there is a sense to the film of boredom, of everything being done by the numbers from everyone, and it being a thing you do for cash, to pass the time, to reach another point and because of that, the film feels like a waste.
Consider this: there is a point in the film when Tony Stark, brilliant, with an army of scientists and billions in cash, says that it is time to change, time to stop making weapons to fund other projects, to stop with weapons that kill and damage and take accountability, and Iron Man is akin to that statement. It hurts no one, true, but the argument is that such a film allows for tiny, interesting, engaging films to be made, or some such thing; but as much as making weapons in the film is a waste of talent and resources, despite their successful outcomes, this film is also a waste of its resources. In the time that this film was made, the people involved could have gotten together, gone with a project that meant something to them, and infused it with such passion and love that it, successful or not, it would have been a thousand times more engaging than this hollow, but polished affair that keeps a franchise alive.
That's what I think, but y'know, perhaps, just perhaps, I'm jaded and cynical, and perhaps the film just wasn't for me. Plenty of others are masturbating over it and maybe you ought listen to them.
The truth it, it's not a bad film, but that's about it. A brief run down of the plot will give you billionaire playboy genius Tony Stark is kidnapped in Afghanistan, takes shrapnel in his heart, and then, rigged up to a car battery, does his impression of Ned Kelly, before returning to America to announce that weapons manufacturing is bad, Stark Enterprises will stop this, and then proceeds to create an Iron Man suit to go and beat up bad guys. The film hints, for a moment, at a dialogue between America's relationship with weapons makers and supplying the world, but it's a hint made by the subject matter, and not the film, and any dialogue that could be established is dropped for cardboard villains and a man in a red and gold suit smacking them around. Which is fine, of course; but the moment someone tells you that this film has subtext, you're to beat them pipe. And outside that kind of statement, Iron Man does very little wrong: Downey is well cast as Tony Stark, Jeff Bridges does his best with the role of the villain that lacks reasoning--why after thirty years decide to kill Stark?--and Gwyneth Paltrow is in a role that seems to be beneath her, an admittance I find strange, given that I've never been a fan of her. Oh, and there's another insufferable cameo by Stan Lee, which I'd really just wish they'd stop doing.
So, what's the problem, then?
It's passion.
There's no passion in this film. There's nothing about it that says, "Iron Man had to be made." There's no love, no defiance, no need, which is something that I found with Batman Begins, and almost every other superhero film I've seen--in fact, perhaps every one, but I'm sure there's been one or two when I haven't thought that. For some of those films, however, what does it matter? No passion in X-Men 3? Good: it was shit from beginning to end. No passion in the Punisher? Heh. Yeah, could anyone make sense of that? But Iron Man, with its good actors and its sometimes interesting director? Why are they here. Why aren't they making a film that they feel something about, which they are engaged with, and which will translate, then, across the screen and to a viewing pleasure for me? Perhaps it's an odd complaint to make, but I don't want to see Downey as Tony Stark, or Jon Favreau directing such a film. Okay, granted, only Made is a difference for him, and it's not that much of a change, given that he apparently directed Zathura: A Space Adventure, but still, the man can make a decent film, and shows some ability, and this is my point. The script was mostly rubbish in terms of dialogue and plot, but so many are--but there's Bridges, doing his best while smoking a cigar, and all I can think is, 'Why are you here, man? You're too good for this."
I ask this, because there is a sense to the film of boredom, of everything being done by the numbers from everyone, and it being a thing you do for cash, to pass the time, to reach another point and because of that, the film feels like a waste.
Consider this: there is a point in the film when Tony Stark, brilliant, with an army of scientists and billions in cash, says that it is time to change, time to stop making weapons to fund other projects, to stop with weapons that kill and damage and take accountability, and Iron Man is akin to that statement. It hurts no one, true, but the argument is that such a film allows for tiny, interesting, engaging films to be made, or some such thing; but as much as making weapons in the film is a waste of talent and resources, despite their successful outcomes, this film is also a waste of its resources. In the time that this film was made, the people involved could have gotten together, gone with a project that meant something to them, and infused it with such passion and love that it, successful or not, it would have been a thousand times more engaging than this hollow, but polished affair that keeps a franchise alive.
That's what I think, but y'know, perhaps, just perhaps, I'm jaded and cynical, and perhaps the film just wasn't for me. Plenty of others are masturbating over it and maybe you ought listen to them.
- Notes:the drones

Comments
honestly, man, i have nothing against superhero films. i just find so many of them passionless.
BATMAN especially bothers me, in part because there is no reason to keep making batman films. it's done. over. bring me something new.
And it's a good story. It's worth telling again and again because it resonates with its audience as popular myth.
I think saying "it's been done" is a very slippery slope to stand at the top of, because what in the end is going to be new? We've been telling stories for thousand and thousands of years. What else is there ever going to be for us to tell?
to my way of looking at it, there's new, and then there's new. ultimately, if you break down fiction to a very basic premise, the deviations aren't very big. but that's what characterisation, style, tone, plot, theme, and all the other things that give a work of fiction substance provide. any artist worth their ability recognises this, and is always striving to push those boundaries--because it is here that the new is achieved, the audience is engaged, and all the good stuff arrives.
in these films, to me, there's nothing like that. perhaps it's simply that they have no ambition to do that that i find them so unrewarding. who knows.
I think there's a difference between pushing something because it continues to make money - Super Mario Bros, James Bond, whatever - and pushing something because audiences and readers continue to find resonance in the story that's being told.
And re: finding characterisation, style, tone, plot and theme, I honestly think David Goyer and Christopher Nolan found that with Batman Begins.
Iron Man? Maybe not, but it was as firm a franchise base as X-Men or Spider-Man.
i honestly don't know how you can split the hairs of bond and, say, batman, but i suppose it's taste. you seem to think much more highly of the flick than i do, anyhow.
also, i need to go to work now.
later.
Anyway, I should work too - diverting as this is.
We all secretly wish our parents had been murdered, turning us into driven vigilantes?